Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T12:28:04.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Population characteristics and biology of two populations of Archaster angulatus (Echinodermata: Asteroidea) in different habitats off the central-western Australian coast

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2010

J.M. Lawrence ,
J.K. Keesing  and
T.R. Irvine
J.M. Lawrence*
Affiliation:
Department of Integrative Biology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USA
J.K. Keesing
Affiliation:
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Private Bag 5, Wembley, WA 6913, Australia
T.R. Irvine
Affiliation:
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Private Bag 5, Wembley, WA 6913, Australia
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: J.M. Lawrence, Department of Integrative Biology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33260, USA email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examined habitat, population size-structure, colour dimorphism, reproductive behaviour, arm loss and the relation between arm regeneration to pyloric caeca indices in populations at Whitford Rock (WR) and Port Beach (PB) in January 2009. The sediment was fine sand at WR and a mix of larger particles at PB. Individuals at PB were predominantly orange and more uniform in colour than those at WR, which were predominantly grey. Body size and pyloric caeca index of individuals at WR were greater than those of individuals at PB, indicating the nutritional condition was better at WR. This suggests the quantity or quality of food at WR was better. Organic matter of the pyloric caeca and body wall of intact and regenerating individuals at both sites were similar, indicating loss of an arm did not affect gross proximate composition of the organs. Sea stars with regenerating arms made up 5.4 and 8.4 % of the populations observed. Despite the very small size of the gonads, some individuals were in the pseudocopulatory position, indicating this behaviour occurs even when gametes are not present. In every case observed, the male of the pseudocopulating pair was situated above the female. Given the abundance of this species in nearshore habitats dominated by sediment, it is likely to be ecologically important. However much of the biology and ecology of the species, even its diet, remain unknown. This together with its unusual mode of reproductive behaviour involving pseudocopulation, which is only known from two other species of asteroids, underscore the need for more research on Archaster angulatus.

Keywords

asteroidArchasterpopulationregenerationpseudocopulationgonadcolour morph
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 91 , Issue 8 , December 2011 , pp. 1577 - 1585
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bedford, F.P. (1900) On echinoderms from Singapore and Malacca. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 14, 271–299.Google Scholar
Boschma, H. (1924) Űber einen Fall von Kopulation bei einer Asteridae (Archaster typicus). Zoologischer Anzeiger 58, 283–285.Google Scholar
de Celis, A.K. (1980) The asteroids of Marindruque Island. Acta Manila (Series A) 19, 20–74.Google Scholar
Clark, H.L. (1946) The echinoderm fauna of Australia. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.Google Scholar
Clemente, L.S. and Anicete, B.Z. (1949) Studies on sex-ratio, sexual dimorphism and early development of the common starfish, Archaster typicus Müller and Troschel (Family Archastseridae). Medical and Applied Science Bulletin 9, 297–318.Google Scholar
Domantay, J.S. (1936) The ecological distribution of the echinoderm fauna of the Puerto Galera Marine Biological Station. Natural and Applied Science Bulletin 5, 385–403.Google Scholar
Emson, R.H. and Wilkie, I.C. (1980) Fission and autonomy in echinoderms. Oceanography and Marine Biology 18, 155–250.Google Scholar
Feder, H.M. and Christensen, A.M. (1966) Aspects of asteroid biology. In Boolootian, R. (ed.) Physiology of Echinodermata. New York: Wiley Interscience Publishers, pp. 87–127.Google Scholar
Jangoux, M. (1972) Note anatomiqiue sur Archaster angulatus Müller et Troschel (Echinodermata: Asteroidea). Revue de Zoologique et de Botanique Africaines 86, 163–172.Google Scholar
Komatsu, M. (1983) Development of the sea-star, Archaster typicus, with a note on male-on-female superposition. Annotationes Zoologicae Japonenses 56, 187–195.Google Scholar
Lane, D.J.W. and Vandenspiegel, D. (2003) A guide to sea stars and other echinoderms of Singapore. Singapore: Singapore Science Centre.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J.M. (1992) Arm loss and regeneration in Asteroidea (Echinodermata). In Scalera-Liaci, L. and Canicatti, C. (eds) Echinoderm research 1991. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, pp. 39–52.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J.M. (in press) Arm loss and regeneration in stellate echinoderms. In Johnson, C. (ed.) Echinoderms in a changing world. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J.M. and Lane, J.M. (1982) The utilization of nutrients by post-metamorphic echinoderms. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J.M. (eds) Echinoderm nutrition. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, pp. 331–371.Google Scholar
Morton, B. (1979) The population dynamics and expression of sexuality in Balcis shaplandi and Mucronalia fulvescens (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Aglossa) parasitic upon Archaster typicus (Echinodermata: Asteroidea). Malacologia 18, 327–346.Google Scholar
Mortensen, T. (1931) Contributions to the study of the development and larval forms of echinoderms. I & II. Konngelige Danske Videnskabeernes Sekskabs Naturvidenskabelige og Mathematiske Afhandlingner 4, 1–39.Google Scholar
Mukai, H., Moritaka, N., Kamisato, H. and Fujimoto, Y. (1986) Distribution and abundance of the sea-star Archaster typicus in Kabira Cove, Ishigaki Island, Okinawa. Bulletin of Marine Science 38, 366–383.Google Scholar
Oshima, H. and Ikeda, H. (1934) Male–female superposition of the sea-star Archastser typicus Müll. and Trosch. Proceedings of the Japanese Academy, Tokyo 10, 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto, L. (1982) Gut content and food consumption of some echinoderms at Talin Bay, Betangas, Philippines. Philippines Journal of Biology 11, 302–308.Google Scholar
Rowe, F.W.E. and Gates, J. (1995) Echinodermata. Zoological catalogue of Australia. Volume 33. Melbourne: CSIRO.Google Scholar
Run, J.-Q., Chen, C.-P., Chang, K.-Y. and Chia, F.-S. (1988) Mating behaviour and reproductive cycle of Archaster typicus (Echinodermata: Asteroidea). Marine Biology 99, 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoppe, S. (2000) Echinoderms of the Philippines. Singapore: Times Editions Pte. Ltd.Google Scholar
Sebens, K.P. (1987) The ecology of indeterminate growth in animals. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18, 371–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slattery, M. and Bosch, I. (1993) Mating behaviour of a brooding Antarctic asteroid, Neosmilaster georgianus. Invertebrate Reproduction and Development 24, 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J. (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. 3rd edition.New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Sukarno, and Jangoux, M. (1977) Révision du genre Archaster Müller et Troschel (Echinodermata, Asteroidea, Archastaeridae). Revue de Zoologie Africaine 91, 817–843.Google Scholar
Underwood, A.J. (1997) Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar